Julian specialises in commercial law, particularly banking, shipping and commodities, insurance and reinsurance, conflicts and jurisdiction, and arbitration. He is a leading specialist in chartering and international sale of goods disputes.
In addition, Julian has extensive banking experience, particularly with disputes involving swaps and derivatives based on the ISDA Master Agreement.
- P v Q  2 Lloyd’s Rep 452: Commercial Court decision on s 12 Arbitration Act and the circumstances in which the court will extend time for commencement of arbitration.
- The Yangtze Xing Hua  1 Lloyd’s Rep 330: Court of Appeal decision on “no fault” losses under the Interclub Agreement 1996.
- Accident Exchange v Maclean  4 WLR 26: Commercial Court decision on legal privilege and the iniquity exception.
- IMS v Capital Oil  2 CLC 327: Commercial Court decision on the procedure for making a challenge to the jurisdiction of the English Courts.
- The Res Cogitans  AC 1034: Supreme Court decision on the question of whether a bunker sale agreement was a contract of sale within the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
- Lehman Brothers International v Lehman Brothers Finance (2012) (Briggs J) – whether the close-out provisions of the ISDA Master Agreement allowed the claimant to bring into account the loss of a side agreement with the defendant following the insolvency of the Lehman group.
- Haugesund v Depfa  2 WLR 199 (CA) – whether a commercial bank was entitled to restitution of money paid to a Norwegian local authority under a void swap agreement in circumstances where the money had subsequently been lost in failed investments.
- Region of Lombardy v Merrill Lynch and UBS – whether the banks mis-sold derivative products to the Region.
Shipping and commodities
- Transgrain v Yangtze Navigation  2 Lloyd’s Rep 212 – decision of Teare J on the allocation of ‘no fault’ losses under the Interclub Agreement 1996.
- The Res Cogitans  AC 1034 – Supreme Court decision on the question whether a bunker sale agreement was a contract of sale within the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
- IMS v Capital Oil  2 CLC 307 – decision of Popplewell J on whether an applicant could make a second challenge to jurisdiction.
- The Rewa  Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 28 – dealing with the construction of the Saleform 93 and whether a ship being sold had to be delivered with documents making her eligible for trading.
- The Triton Lark  Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 18 – dealing with the construction of the Conwartime 1993 clause and the question whether a time-chartered owner could refuse an order to sail through the Gulf of Aden because of the risk from pirates.
- The Mary Nour  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 636 – dealing with the circumstances in which a commodity contract is frustrated when a seller’s source of supply fails.
- Antiparos  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 237 – whether charterers were obliged to give indemnify owners against losses caused by amendments to the charterers’ voyage orders under the Asbatankvoy form.
- La Reunion Aerienne v ANDI – dealing with aggregation of losses arising from 9/11 attacks, following settlement of property claims.
- No.1 Dae Bu  Lloyd’s Rep. IR 860 – whether the Court should grant negative declaratory relief; whether the assured was in breach of class warranties.
Conflicts / jurisdiction
- Electrim v Vivendi  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 59 (CA) – whether the Court properly exercised its equitable jurisdiction to restrain vexatious proceedings in the US.
- The Katarina  1 Lloyd’s Rep 449 – dealing with the circumstances in which the Court should extend the validity of a claim form served overseas.
- The Dimitris L  Lloyd’s Rep Plus 25 – dealing with the conditions under which the High Court can direct arbitrators to clarify their Award.
- Syska v Vivendi  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 636 (CA) – whether an arbitral tribunal could be deprived of jurisdiction by a foreign statute which nullified the arbitration agreement.